If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
MF & Technical Pan, looking for optimum sharpness
Hello,
The last few weeks I've been shooting landscapes with a Hasselblad 503CW, using a CFE 2.8/80 mm- lens and TMX. Now that I've finally decided on how to build my compositions, I'm considering to start all over again using Technical Pan. For most pictures, the lens is stopped down to f11 or more. As you probably suspect from the combination medium-format / Technical Pan, I'll be trying to get the most out of my camera/film combination in terms of detail, sharpness, ... The technical data-sheet of my lens states that Depth Of Field data are 'calculated for a blur circle of 60 µm and do nog include the effect of lens aberrations. For very critical photography and great enlargements this blur will be visible.' (http://www.hasselblad.se/Archive/doc...oductsheets/CF E80.pdf). Further ause of DOF-data for apertures of 2 f-stops larger is suggested. Kodak claims that ther Technical Pan film (http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...p255/p255.jhtm l?id=0.1.18.14.21.22.16&lc=en) has an RMS-granularity of 5 (developed in Technidol, of which I have a few bottles craving for film in the darkroom). As far as I can figure out, the RMS-granularity is a standard deviation (been confronted with rms-values more then a few times throughout my education), but I don't know of what. There must be a link to the size of film-grain, but to me it's still a missing link. My question is not so much wether, for my specific case, I should take in account the 2-stop correction for DOF-data Hasselblad recommends. Most of all I would like to understand why (of maybe why not) I should consider this correction. Thx to all (and please accept my excuses for cross-posting), Philippe |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
MF & Technical Pan, looking for optimum sharpness
"Philippe Lauwers" schreef in bericht i.nl... Hello, The last few weeks I've been shooting landscapes with a Hasselblad 503CW, using a CFE 2.8/80 mm- lens and TMX. Now that I've finally decided on how to build my compositions, I'm considering to start all over again using Technical Pan. For most pictures, the lens is stopped down to f11 or more. As you probably suspect from the combination medium-format / Technical Pan, I'll be trying to get the most out of my camera/film combination in terms of detail, sharpness, ... The technical data-sheet of my lens states that Depth Of Field data are 'calculated for a blur circle of 60 µm and do nog include the effect of lens aberrations. For very critical photography and great enlargements this blur will be visible.' (http://www.hasselblad.se/Archive/doc...oductsheets/CF E80.pdf). Further ause of DOF-data for apertures of 2 f-stops larger is suggested. Kodak claims that ther Technical Pan film (http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...p255/p255.jhtm l?id=0.1.18.14.21.22.16&lc=en) has an RMS-granularity of 5 (developed in Technidol, of which I have a few bottles craving for film in the darkroom). As far as I can figure out, the RMS-granularity is a standard deviation (been confronted with rms-values more then a few times throughout my education), but I don't know of what. There must be a link to the size of film-grain, but to me it's still a missing link. My question is not so much wether, for my specific case, I should take in account the 2-stop correction for DOF-data Hasselblad recommends. Most of all I would like to understand why (of maybe why not) I should consider this correction. Thx to all (and please accept my excuses for cross-posting), Philippe Some more thoughts ... my intuition tells me that, as long as this blur circle is smaller than the average silver-particle in the film used, the piece of the image can be considered as 'sharp'. Is there a relationship between the RMS-granularity and the size of silver-particles in the emulsion (I suppose so, but don't have a clue on what this law could be) ? Is there a rule of thumb that gives an estimation for the grain-size based on RMS-granularity ? Are there any other elements that I should consider ? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
MF & Technical Pan, looking for optimum sharpness
"Philippe Lauwers" wrote
Hasselblad 503CW ... CFE 2.8/80 ... Technical Pan ... get the most Shoot at optimum aperture, about f5.6. Use a 25A filter. Use a tripod (goes without saying). -- Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
MF & Technical Pan, looking for optimum sharpness
"Philippe Lauwers" wrote in message i.nl... Hello, The last few weeks I've been shooting landscapes with a Hasselblad 503CW, using a CFE 2.8/80 mm- lens and TMX. Now that I've finally decided on how to build my compositions, I'm considering to start all over again using Technical Pan. For most pictures, the lens is stopped down to f11 or more. As you probably suspect from the combination medium-format / Technical Pan, I'll be trying to get the most out of my camera/film combination in terms of detail, sharpness, ... I'm not convinced it's all that much better than Provia or Velvia 100F. Maybe slightly. It scans really ugly (gritty) and dust is really obnoxious. YMMV if you are projection printing. But it's very much worth the time experimenting. The technical data-sheet of my lens states that Depth Of Field data are 'calculated for a blur circle of 60 µm and do nog include the effect of lens aberrations. For very critical photography and great enlargements this blur will be visible.' (http://www.hasselblad.se/Archive/doc...oductsheets/CF E80.pdf). Further ause of DOF-data for apertures of 2 f-stops larger is suggested. My experience is that hyperfocal focusing is usually a bad idea: any loss of sharpness at infinity hurts. For landscapes, leave your lens at infinity focus except in rare cases. Remember that DOF tables were all created in the days when medium format was the format used by the masses for snapshots and small prints. Things are different in this day of 4000 dpi scans and 13x19s from 645. Even two stops may not be enough. With my 35/3.5 lens on my Mamiya 645, I get lots of DOF. The DOF on all my other lenses (55, 110, 150) is esssentially zero for practical purposes. Kodak claims that ther Technical Pan film (http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...p255/p255.jhtm l?id=0.1.18.14.21.22.16&lc=en) has an RMS-granularity of 5 (developed in Technidol, of which I have a few bottles craving for film in the darkroom). As far as I can figure out, the RMS-granularity is a standard deviation (been confronted with rms-values more then a few times throughout my education), but I don't know of what. There must be a link to the size of film-grain, but to me it's still a missing link. Stop thinking and go shoot some frames. My question is not so much wether, for my specific case, I should take in account the 2-stop correction for DOF-data Hasselblad recommends. Most of all I would like to understand why (of maybe why not) I should consider this correction. See above. It's your art and your eye: decide for yourself. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
MF & Technical Pan, looking for optimum sharpness
In article , "Philippe
Lauwers" wrote: My question is not so much wether, for my specific case, I should take in account the 2-stop correction for DOF-data Hasselblad recommends. Most of all I would like to understand why (of maybe why not) I should consider this correction. Hasselblad's article seems to make it clear: when closely scrutinizing the outcome or making large prints, the hyperfocal table does not work because it presumes a modest enlargement - a generous COC. Big prints or more strident standards requires a smaller COC. Benchracers. Sheesh. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
MF & Technical Pan, looking for optimum sharpness
In rec.photo.darkroom Philippe Lauwers wrote:
Hello, The last few weeks I've been shooting landscapes with a Hasselblad 503CW, using a CFE 2.8/80 mm- lens and TMX. Now that I've finally decided on how to build my compositions, I'm considering to start all over again using Technical Pan. For most pictures, the lens is stopped down to f11 or more. My experience with Techpan is that it's very fine grain, but not optimum sharpness. There is a thing like "visible sharpness", and this isn't reflected in RMS values. I ususally shoot Delta 100 in medium format (mostly SL66 and Mamiya 7) and occasionally use Efke 25 in Beutler developer. These two films give very good visible sharpness, my test films with Techpan and Neofin Doku had finer grain, but less sharpness. Both cameras were used with a large Linhof tripod and MLU at the SL66. Both Delta 100 and Efke 25 are good enough for enlargements to 1mx1m, and even then smallest details of 1mm are easily visible. Good enough for me, if I want more, I use 13x18. Martin |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
MF & Technical Pan, looking for optimum sharpness
"Philippe Lauwers" wrote
'calculated for a blur circle of 60 µm and do nog include the effect of lens aberrations. For very critical photography and great enlargements this blur will be visible. You might look at it this way. Tech Pan is for two dimensional subjects. That was the reason for it's creation. No three dimensional subject will do Tech Pan justice. Minox and 35mm users love the stuff because big grainless enlargements can be made. With a very carefull selection of subject and superb optics they can produce large sharp prints. Dan |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
MF & Technical Pan, looking for optimum sharpness
"Martin Jangowski" wrote in message
... My experience with Techpan is that it's very fine grain, but not optimum sharpness. There is a thing like "visible sharpness", and this isn't reflected in RMS [...] I have the very same notion. Apparent ("visible") sharpness is made via edge effects, and a very fine, smooth grain isn't likely to have ot. "Creamy" is how I describe many fine-grain films. It's good, or not, depending on your likes. Oof the reasons I just friggin hate Kodak's T-Grain films is because it is the worst combination of 'kinda' fine grain without a chance of edge sharpness. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
MF & Technical Pan, looking for optimum sharpness
Use a tripod (goes without saying). a what ? ;-) (grin) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
MF & Technical Pan, looking for optimum sharpness
"Philippe Lauwers" wrote: Use a tripod (goes without saying). a what ? ;-) (grin) One of these: http://www.pbase.com/image/26582234/large (Oops) David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Looking for T-Max or Technical pan glass plates | C. L?pez | In The Darkroom | 11 | June 10th 04 03:42 AM |
Technical Pan | Joao Pedro Sousa | Film & Labs | 2 | May 27th 04 03:33 PM |
MF & Technical Pan, looking for optimum sharpness | Philippe Lauwers | In The Darkroom | 38 | April 25th 04 12:23 AM |